Christianity minus Paul - Page 6

JustifiedByFaith · 08-10-2006, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I am curious, since I have seen the topic brought up from time to time, just what Christianity would look like minus the teachings of Paul. Frankly, Paul has many detractors, but I have yet to see any of them post what Christianity should be, in their view. What is left when we remove the teachings of Paul?

Dear juantoo3,

A great question. Unfortunately, that's hard to answer since Paul was given the ministry by the Holy Spirit specifically to preach to the Gentiles. His ministry was supported by both Peter and James who primarily shared Jesus to the Jewish people. Without Paul I can't image what would be the outreach to the Gentiles outside of the work of the Holy Spirit in the world.

Excaliburton · 09-14-2006, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I am curious, since I have seen the topic brought up from time to time, just what Christianity would look like minus the teachings of Paul. Frankly, Paul has many detractors, but I have yet to see any of them post what Christianity should be, in their view. What is left when we remove the teachings of Paul?

What's left is the teaching of Jesus, and Jesus never had to quote Paul's teaching to fulfill His mission.

If Jesus did not need to quote Paul, why would we?

Excaliburton · 09-17-2006, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

The first thing that comes to my mind, is that Christianity would not be carried to, nor have any relevence for, the goyim, the gentiles, the nations. What would be left of the New Testament would be directed soley and only to Messianic Jews.

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

kenod · 09-18-2006, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Read the next verse and look at the cross reference and you will see what Peter is talking about.

The problem I have with your interpretation of Scripture is not so much that it is different to mine, but that it ignores context, both immediate and global, and that it generalises without contextual authority.

Quahom1 · 09-18-2006, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

What's left is the teaching of Jesus, and Jesus never had to quote Paul's teaching to fulfill His mission.

If Jesus did not need to quote Paul, why would we?

Because Paul set the ground rules. Even though the message of Jesus was out, the churches needed guidance (that is where Paul comes in). The churhes were squabbling or back sliding or a whole bevy of indiscretions and Paul became the "arbiter".

That is why we need Paul. And that is why Jesus placed people like Paul in positions of authority in order to keep the fledgling churches moving in the right direction.

v/r

Q

kenod · 09-18-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Because Paul set the ground rules. Even though the message of Jesus was out, the churches needed guidance (that is where Paul comes in). The churhes were squabbling or back sliding or a whole bevy of indiscretions and Paul became the "arbiter".

That is why we need Paul. And that is why Jesus placed people like Paul in positions of authority in order to keep the fledgling churches moving in the right direction.

v/r

Q

When you read 2 Peter 2 and see how the false teachers are so roundly denounced, the comparison with Peter's words about Paul in the next chapter, indicate great confidence in Paul's understanding of Scripture:

14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

juantoo3 · 09-19-2006, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

What's left is the teaching of Jesus, and Jesus never had to quote Paul's teaching to fulfill His mission.

If Jesus did not need to quote Paul, why would we?

Well, you see, there is a little problem with this reasoning, in that Jesus (or Yashua) did not actually write any of the books of the Bible. And some of the people who wrote the books containing Jesus' words, were compatriots of Paul (according to V. Garaffa). Since Paul's cohorts are to be discredited as well, meaning Luke and Mark, that takes away half of Jesus' words. And we all know we can't trust a tax collector now, can we? so there goes Matthew. And had it not been for the efforts of Paul, John's work (gospel, epistles and Revelations) would have all been trampled underfoot of the Roman army and lost to the world.

Ergo: no words of Jesus would exist (as any more than historical curiousities) without the efforts of Paul.

One might as well be Jewish, or Deist.

juantoo3 · 09-19-2006, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

I don't get it. Are you quoting Paul to refute Paul? Take away Paul, the "Word" stays in Jerusalem and Israel (one must first be Jewish!), and tries, most likely unsuccessfully, to survive the Roman onslaught and destruction of Jerusalem and Israel. Only the diaspora survived, and what survived in radically changed from what existed at that time. Both for Judaism and Christianity. Both had to change to survive!

In short, if Paul is gone, this verse from his personal assistant Luke does not exist, and the commission to go to the goyim and the nations does not exist. In other words, Christianity dies an ignoble death without Paul. Like him personally or not, like him professionally or not, that is the way things would have come about otherwise. No Christianity without Paul. So why be Christian at all???

Quahom1 · 09-19-2006, 04:00 AM

indeed...the only words Jesus ever wrote, were written in the dirt, and then erased. However, they must have had some meaning, because the act it self was not lost on the witnesses that tell His story.

Excaliburton · 10-03-2006, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliburton
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I don't get it. Are you quoting Paul to refute Paul? Take away Paul, the "Word" stays in Jerusalem and Israel (one must first be Jewish!), and tries, most likely unsuccessfully, to survive the Roman onslaught and destruction of Jerusalem and Israel. Only the diaspora survived, and what survived in radically changed from what existed at that time. Both for Judaism and Christianity. Both had to change to survive!

In short, if Paul is gone, this verse from his personal assistant Luke does not exist, and the commission to go to the goyim and the nations does not exist. In other words, Christianity dies an ignoble death without Paul. Like him personally or not, like him professionally or not, that is the way things would have come about otherwise. No Christianity without Paul. So why be Christian at all???

What I am saying is that even if you accept Paul as a legitimate apostle, (although there is no verse in the Acts that affirms he was an apostle), Luke shows that Peter was the one who was appointed to preach the gospel to the nations (or gentiles).

If you decide to reject both Paul and Luke, the Great Commission at the end of Matthew instructs the original apostles to preach the gospel to all nations and this is also affirmed in Revelation.

Faithfulservant · 10-04-2006, 02:35 AM

Ive said it before and I will say it again.. Paul is blessed indeed.. he is still being persecuted and its been 2000 years.

cyberpi · 10-04-2006, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

If Jesus did not need to quote Paul, why would we?

Well, Jesus (pbuh) did not directly quote anyone here either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Ive said it before and I will say it again.. Paul is blessed indeed.. he is still being persecuted and its been 2000 years.

Thats not persecution... you can't persecute the corpse. Defile it maybe, but not persecute.

Quahom1 · 10-04-2006, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Well, Jesus (pbuh) did not directly quote anyone here either.

Thats not persecution... you can't persecute the corpse. Defile it maybe, but not persecute.

Try telling that to the outraged Muslims? Hey, fair is fair.

cyberpi · 10-04-2006, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Try telling that to the outraged Muslims? Hey, fair is fair.

What? Oh, right. Jesus (pbuh) did not quote the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) either.

shadowman · 10-04-2006, 04:39 AM

i heard paul didnt write all of the stuff the bible thinks he wrote.

aparantly there was a tradition back ten of claiming authorsip i order to give credibility, and paul was a big name.

another thig that contributed to the argument was that different things paul supposedly wrote did not have similar writing styles. but i have not done enough homeowrk on either of hese points